Time to prove the official report right

acutally if i had the billions of dollars i would rebuild teh trade center and fly a 757 into it remote controlly and then let teh building burn until it ither A.) goes out
B.) collapses
c.) aleins shoot it down hahaha

Heres some Information from the guys over at MIT. Its a pretty long read. Have fun!

Abstract
The “post-September 11
th
” structural engineer, while feeling the remorse and confusion that
every other American has dealt with, is also privileged with the immense education an analysis
of the WTC collapse can provide. A newly found understanding for impact dynamics and
failure of very large systems, as well as a comprehensive grasp of the brevity accompanying
safety considerations in construction projects, will be present in industrial practice from now
on. The research into the World Trade Center Towers collapse following the initial fact-
gathering phase is now beginning the more ambitious tasks of reconstructing various stages of
the damage and destruction of the Twin Towers. Currently, or at least as current as this paper,
the FEMA/ASCE team has just released their report, [1], and an independent investigation is
being conducted by the National Science Foundation study group. Preparations are also
underway to launch a new program aimed at a producing a detailed simulation of the aircraft
impact damage, fire damage, and the total collapse of the buildings. This work is led and
coordinated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

64.233.167.104...:zLNpOHNm8nIJ:web.mit.edu/ci venv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%2520IV%2520Aircraft%2520Impact.pdf+a+building+with+asymmetrical+damage+can+collapse+symmetrically&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11& client=firefox-a


*edit* Heres the MIT PDF File


- NSBiz





[edit on 24-1-2007 by NSBiz]

BS, How fast did it actually fall(according to your theory), and what rate of fall for a demolition of a building that size? If you took the calculations provided say herewww.studyof911.com...">click me

I truly think that it comes down to splitting hairs in fractions of a second when we talk about the "free fall' collpase of the WTC 1 and 2. I have read people who calcualte it to take longer, and those who do it shorter, and when I did it myself months ago after coming across an article similar as to the one I linked, I watched news video of that day and did the calculations based on the size of the towers, and it was very, very close. I will admit that i am not a physics professor, but the amount of mass behind what was falling was a major factor in the collapse speed, as well as the design of the towers themselves which offered less resistence than most steel skyscrapers.

This is why I am such a pain in the ass about the demo proof. I need proof of something else to not believe what I have already proven to myself, and that is simply that terrorists flew 2 jets into the WTC, and they collapsed. 2900+ dead. Sorry if I am a pain in the arse, but I need some proof man.

This is also a good, third party article.

www.du.edu...

The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

What happened next was unexpected and catastrophic. The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost.

It is clear that buildings built in this manner have a catastrophic mode of failure ("house of cards") that should rule out their future construction. It is triggered when there is a partial collapse at any level that breaks the continuity of the tube, which then rolls up quickly, from top to bottom. The collapse has a means of propagation that soon involves the whole structure, bypassing its major strengths and impossible to interrupt. There is no need for an airliner; a simple explosion would do the job. There were central tubes in the towers, for elevators and services, but they appeared to play no substantial role in the collapse, and were not evident in the pictures or wreckage.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by esdad71]

It actaully makes good arguement for both sides, including how easy it would be to demo with such a design.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by esdad71]

I don't need an MIT "expert" who, for all I know is on the take, to explain to me basic physics. One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to linear motion or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They are mutually exclusive.

Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings.

Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth “for my own good”, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo.

Originally posted by esdad71

This is why I am such a pain in the ass about the demo proof. I need proof of something else to not believe what I have already proven to myself, and that is simply that terrorists flew 2 jets into the WTC, and they collapsed. 2900+ dead. Sorry if I am a pain in the arse, but I need some proof man.

Ok so you are one of many that ignore WTC7? A plane didn't crash into that one, and that one fell at freefall speed, AND it weighs less than WTC 1 and 2. Wow, you are missing the weakest link.

Way to go, I will make sure to put you on ignore.

Originally posted by 1150111

Ok so you are one of many that ignore WTC7? A plane didn't crash into that one, and that one fell at freefall speed, AND it weighs less than WTC 1 and 2. Wow, you are missing the weakest link.

Way to go, I will make sure to put you on ignore.

What are you talking about????

It fell at freefall speed AND it weighs less than WTC 1 and 2? So what if it fell at freefall speed, even if it did, and weighed more? What does weight have to do with anything?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

What are you talking about????

It fell at freefall speed AND it weighs less than WTC 1 and 2? So what if it fell at freefall speed, even if it did, and weighed more? What does weight have to do with anything?

I'm so sad I even have to explain it still... there is no hope for the 9/11 truth.

It fell at freefall speed. That means there was zero resistance. Every single steal support beam that used to hold up 100000's of pounds of weight, all of a sudden cant hold a damn ounce. The physical presence of the beam even being there appears to not effect the falling of the building in any way. If I dropped a heavy book on a standing pile of sticks, the book would hit the sticks and change its path of decent. The book hit resistance. Somehow though, WTC7 fell as if there was no sticks (beams).

Weight is a very important factor in this conversation, because you offical report believers claim the weight of WTC 1 and 2 helped bring it down faster. Well, WTC7 fell, and its not as heavy. I don't know how to explain myself any more than that, unless I start from the begining, and that would be teaching you the ABC's, then how each letter sounds.

Originally posted by esdad71
I will admit that i am not a physics professor, but the amount of mass behind what was falling was a major factor in the collapse speed, as well as the design of the towers themselves which offered less resistance than most steel skyscrapers.

How did the towers 'offer less resistance than most steel skyscrapers'?

How does that even make any sense?

That mass you talk about, as far as The South Tower was concerned, was tilting and rotating then started breaking up as the collapse began.
How does that manage to ignore 'Newtons first law of motion' (inertia), and the 'law of angular momentum' to become a downward energy powerful enough to crush 77 undamaged floors and the columns holding them up?

I look fwd to your explanation....

Originally posted by esdad71
This is also a good, third party article.

www.du.edu...

The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

Ok, see the bold part? I don't understand that logic. How did the floors suddenly receive a load for which they were not designed? Better yet, how did the core receive a load for which they were not desinged?

Look at the picture below...



...section B was designed to support the entire weight of section A, and more. That means, only section A should have collapsed, and section B should still be standing to this day. There is no reason for the entire thing to collapse, period.




[edit on 24-1-2007 by 1150111]

… well. To bring this back on topic, while I don’t necessarily believe the explanations of the official story, I also don’t jump to the conclusions that most conspiracy theories do. Absence of an explanation doesn’t open up the playing field for any theory, especially one with no proof other than amateur observations.

While specifics may not be explained (to your liking), the basic concept of planes & fire causing catastrophic failure is far more likely. It doesn’t mean I don’t or can’t think, it just means that basically it happened like it appeared to by 99.5 percent of the world.

Your parents kill your brother.
Your parents tell you "bad guys" did it.

So what will you believe.

Arguing with people who see the government like a child views his parents is a completely fruitless endeavor. Save your ammunition for people who have not been exposed to the truth, as opposed to people who are unable to even consider it.

The government banks on us seeing them as parents because that's how we've been indoctrinated.

There are those that would demand a "smoking gun" in the 911 Commission Report, but we are few and far between.

Originally posted by esdad71
BS, How fast did it actually fall(according to your theory), and what rate of fall for a demolition of a building that size? If you took the calculations provided say herewww.studyof911.com...">click me

I truly think that it comes down to splitting hairs in fractions of a second when we talk about the "free fall' collpase of the WTC 1 and 2.

Already I've lost you.

I'm not talking about velocity. I'm talking about acceleration. Not free fall acceleration. A total lack of acceleration. It has nothing to do with how fast any of the buildings fell.

I found this testimony interesting:

I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!!

Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted.

Yet HUGE core I-beams, supporting the elevator and utility shafts, were VAPORISED at the WTC towers? Stop, I'll wet my britches laughing.

I've melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I 've welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

I ask you plainly: you know the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower?

a_ht, what caused that?

Tell me you believe, like me, it was the JP-8 (yes, I work with jet fuel daily, too) contained in the jet's tanks, correct?

Huge explosion, you say you were there that day? Your father? He see this huge fireball?

What was it?

Because, if it was the kerosene (JP-8, acts just like diesel, you can put it right in your diesel tank, works great, low flash point of 140 deg) that did explode that way, that you state so assuredly melted steel,

explain how it reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building, and THEN what?

Ran down 90 floors to melt the "uninsulated I-beams"? What? "Shook" it off by jet impact? Are you kiddin' me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below!!! What nonsense, a_ht!!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. About the size on one of the many offices on the floor hit. That's all, a_ht. The size of one office.

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and only

Well if you think about it, the combustion chamber of a jet engine burns jet fuel for many many hours at a time. They don't melt.

www.howstuffworks.com...


[edit on 24-1-2007 by 1150111]

Originally posted by Akareyon
We could build one.

And borrow a Boeing somewhere, maybe.

You could do that and it would still be debated by some. You could have witnesses and cameras at all sorts of wonderful angles and people would still cry fake, holographic planes etc......

But there again if there were a reverse experiment there would probably be some who would claim a plane hit or something.

So really I say, whatever happened whats the point? If the establishment really pulled off something like 11th September then they would be able to cover it up with ease.

I believe that whatever you think may have happened, no-one will find proof enough to prove the oposite view. Get over it.

Originally posted by esdad71
I will admit that i am not a physics professor, but the amount of mass behind what was falling was a major factor in the collapse speed, as well as the design of the towers themselves which offered less resistence than most steel skyscrapers.

I would like to point out that the mass of an object has nothing to do with the speed at which it falls. A 5 pound stone will fall just as fast as a 5000 pound stone. The question remains why the weight of the top 20-odd floors, which the building was already holding up, suddenly became so MASSIVE that it crushed the whole building to the ground? This does not make any sense. The weight of a few floors, heck let's say all the affected floors, falling would not compromise the core. If the joints that held the floor trusses were that weak, then we should have seen all the floors collapsing inside the still standing outer wall and core. They can't fail all at once and at the same time hold on and drag down the core and outer walls. You can't have it both ways.

This is also a good, third party article.

www.du.edu...

The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

We have already shown time and time again that these temperatures have no effect on the structural integrity of steel. See the post about the diesel tank burning for four days that did not melt, or the fact that your gas- or oil-burning oven made of steel does not melt. They tested the floor trusses for two hours without any failure or sagging.

The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost.

It states right there that the impact of the plane had no effect on the buildings integrity, so there must be some other reason for it's collapse, right? One floor corner failing would bring down the whole building???

There were central tubes in the towers, for elevators and services, but they appeared to play no substantial role in the collapse, and were not evident in the pictures or wreckage.

The core that took 80% of the gravity load of the building played no substantial role in the collapse??? The fact that it's not evident in the pictures or wreckage should raise the question of what exactly happened to it, right? These were not "tubes" they were massive steel columns. And they WOULD play a role in the collapse, no matter what!



[edit on 24-1-2007 by esdad71]

[edit on 24-1-2007 by esdad71]

I studied for a Civil Engineering degree before I left uni to go and play soldiers, demolitions was a big part of my 1st year and it is really amazing the amount of calculations needed to make a predictable demolition. To have demolished the WTC in such a neat and ordily manner would have taken a demolition firm !!MONTHS!! to plan. For it to fall like it did once by chance is a miracle but for the second tower to fall in the same way, hmmm?

IMO when the plane smashed into the side it would have caused serious damage to the superstructure but only on the side the plane hit, the WTC would have shook but it wouldn't have fell down so quickly. Buildings like the WTC are designed to take a certain amount of damage. The problems arise from the fire the floors affected where burning with kerosine and the tower acted like a chimmney allowing lots of air to feed the furnace. This would have heated the metal superstructure to very high temperatures and the steel would loose alot of its strength. NOW the side that was hit would have already lost alot of it structural strength, combined with the heat the impact side would have failed first. IMO the towers should have fallen like a tree, like if you cut a wedge into a tree trunk the tree falls towards the wedge as there is less support, the path of least resistance! the part above the impact site would come crashing down causing god knows how much damage to the surroundings.

IMO for the towers to fall like they did would have needed a series of timed explosions on the load bearing cores that would have caused implosion as the core fell straight down bring the substructure with it.

Originally posted by Byrd
Looking at pictures of old demolitions of brick and other types of buildings (and even of buildings of other shapes) tells you exactly nothing.

Not really. Not when most concrete structures are held together with steel. Concrete structures are not one solid piece of concrete as some would have you believe. If the supports are what failed in the towers and 7, then it can be comparitive in a relative way.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The problems arise from the fire the floors affected where burning with kerosine and the tower acted like a chimmney allowing lots of air to feed the furnace. This would have heated the metal superstructure to very high temperatures and the steel would loose alot of its strength.

I feel it's important to point out that the WTC was build with "air-locks" spaced out between every few floors to counteract this effect. There is no way the tower would act as a chimney, as it was specifically designed not to. All the thick black smoke would be a good indication of this as it indicates an oxygen deprivated fire. Ie. a relatively "cold" fire.

Originally posted by cav01c14
acutally if i had the billions of dollars i would rebuild teh trade center and fly a 757 into it remote controlly and then let teh building burn until it ither A.) goes out
B.) collapses
c.) aleins shoot it down hahaha

All we would need to do would be to build the cap of WTC 1. Then drop it the amount of one floor height and see if it falls apart. Also measure the amount of force applied to the ground (to see what the force would be exerted on the remaining building). We don't need to be up 110 stories. I think people are getting confused (not meaning you cav01c14) with the equation for potential energy. It contains height. The height is only the height of one floor. With the conservation of energy, the potential energy at the moment before collapse is:

Potential energy = mgh

m=mass
g=acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s>2)
h=height

You can chose a datum point wherever. The height is calculated from the distance to which the object is raised, relative to a given reference level. The reference level in this case would be the floor below it.

So, it wouldn't matter if we dropped the cap onto the remaining building or the ground. It would have the same amount of kinetic energy in the end.

Also, this is how it relates to other demolitions that have been "botched". The kinetic energy being absorbed by those concrete structures is the same (relatively) kinetic energy that brought the buildings down. What we need to do is find a demolition "botch" that had approximately the same amount of mass as the cap of the towers.

That's what I'm getting at with comparing "botched" demolitions.